Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

Images missing source or license information may now be "speedied"

Place either:

{{subst:nsd}} for no source

or

{{subst:nld}} for no license

on the image description page to put the image in the appropriate category. After being tagged for 7 days, the image will be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 4 for images.

Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance to fix the problem(s) (the templates {{image source|Image:Image name.ext}} and {{image copyright|Image:Image name.ext}} are made for this purpose, but feel free to write a message of your own). It is not nessesary to warn the uploader about every individual image if they have uploaded several such images, but at least one message telling them that images without source/license will be deleted should be given to each (active) user who risk "losing" images because of this (fairly new) rule.

Shortcut

[[:|WP:PUI]]

This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have disputed source or licensing information. Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed.

Instructions

Before listing, check if the image should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (if its source is known and it cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine) or at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (if it's simply unneeded).

To list an image on this page:

Place one of the following tags on the image description page:
- {{PUIdisputed}} — If the source or copyright status is disputed.
- {{PUInonfree}} — If the image is only available under a non-free license.
Contact the uploader by adding a message to their talk page. You can use {{subst:idw-pui|Image:filename.ext}} (replace filename.ext with the name of the image). If the editor hasn't visited in a while, consider using the "E-mail this user" link.
Add "{{unverifiedimage}}" to the image caption on articles the image is on. This is to attract more attention to the deletion debate to see what should be done.
List the image at the bottom of this page, stating the reasons why the image should be deleted.

Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days.

Note: Images can be unlisted immediately if they are undisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on these). Images which claim fair use must have two people agree to this.

Holding cell

These images have been listed for at least 14 days. Images which have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.

March 17

Everything in Category: Polish government site pictures, i.e., everything tagged with {{PolandGov}}, which forbids commercial use. At a first glance, it looks like most of the historical images could potentially be used under a "fair use" rationale. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the tag itself contain the link to the source of all the pictures, so there's no need to claim the pics are unsourced. They are sourced, just follow the link and go one level up. The page is in English, so you won't have trouble locating the right picture. Other than that, I'm currently negotiating the commercial use of those pics with the Polish ministry. I wonder why is wikipedia interested in doing that as it is not us to use them commercially, but it's another story. Halibu tt 21:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo says that noncommercial images aren't to be used on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL allows commercial use.Genidealingwithfairuse 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listings

New images should be listed in this section, under today's date. Please be sure to tag the image with an appropriate PUI tag, and notify the uploader.

15 May

Image:Dscn5314 03.jpg, Image:Valens.jpg, Image:Img 98512.jpg, Image:Leander tower.jpg, Image:TPK8.jpg, Image:TPK8049.jpg, Image:TPK64.JPG, Image:Trea9 1.jpg, Image:Trea8.jpg, Image:TPK0114.jpg, Image:Topkapi palace 2.jpg, Image:TopkapiG.jpg, Image:T61.jpg, Image:Trea1.jpg, Image:Kasıkcı.jpg, Image:Topkapi-Dagger.gif, Image:Topkapi5.jpg, Image:Golden door of the harem.jpg, Image:Topkapi1.jpg, Image:Haydarpasha.jpg, Image:Ajda2.jpg, Image:AJ1.jpg, Image:Ajda1.jpg, Image:AjdaNos.jpg, Image:Ajda cocuk.jpg - images by User:Ajda taken from websites and claimed without evidence as copyrightedfreeuse, or in some cases gfdl-self/pd-self —Steven G. Johnson 02:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sezen aksu 12.jpg, Image:Ajda pekkan 04.jpg, Image:Bulent ersoy.jpg - claimed as PD without evidence, uploaded by User:Blue sea —Steven G. Johnson 02:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim.JPG - unsupported norightsreserved tag —Steven G. Johnson 02:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ferrari f2002.jpg - unlikely PD-self claim —Steven G. Johnson 02:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Pcapretz123.jpg, Image:Catholiccrosier.jpg, Image:Bmitre.jpg, Image:Pcapretz123.jpg, Image:Basilicaofthenationalshrineinterior.jpg - unlikely claims of PD status by User:Ekong, a repeat offender —Steven G. Johnson 02:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lydia3567.jpeg, Image:MSI stvremix cover.jpg, Image:Newafilogo.gif, Image:Senffail2.jpg, Image:Musskanow.jpg, Image:Lydiadecem.jpeg, Image:Lydia3822567.jpeg, Image:Maria2.jpeg - unlikely claims of PD-self etc. —Steven G. Johnson 03:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:Tad Hilgenbrink.JPG & Image:Tad Hilgenbrink.jpg, - image is a screen capture and not in the public domain.~~ Dismas|^(talk) 03:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User that uploaded the images has changed the license to {{Film-screensot}}, removing tags from images myself. Dismas|^(talk) 02:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hbhscreeni.png - "The owner's don't mind" doesn't mean they want it to be essentially public domain... --Rory096 05:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Piuscenter.jpg - the copyright says clearly: "They [the images] are not available for commercial purposes without my explicit permission" --Panairjdde 14:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I am silly - I assumed for some reason Wikipedia wasn't commercial :-S Could you help find a GFDL equivalent of this image, otherwise that drastically reduces what I can use on Column of Antoninus Pius. Molto grazie. Neddyseagoon 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon[reply]

- Also by Neddyseagoon: Image:Piuswife.jpg, Image:Skyphos.jpg, Image:Antonbase3.jpg, Image:Antoninusbase.jpg, Image:Ribchester helmet.JPG, Image:Female gladiators BM.jpg, Image:Roman gaul suicide.jpg, - claimed as PD-art, but are photos of 3d objects such as statues (which therefore are creative works and subject to copyright) —Steven G. Johnson 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, though seems a little harsh - is there no category for 'images of ancient sculpture' / images of 2d artworks out of copyright Neddyseagoon 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon[reply]
    - Unfortunately, there's not much we can do. Consider this: a mountain was not created by anyone (human), and is therefore not copyrighted, but pictures of mountains certainly are copyrighted. The same thing applies here; the age of the sculpture is irrelevant. —Steven G. Johnson 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also by Neddyseagoon: Image:Aux1 jpg.jpg, Image:Archersyrian.gif, Image:Auxil jpg.jpg, Image:Middlewich-cavalry.gif, - claimed as promotional fair use, but are used as generic illustrations of the historical subjects in question rather than to illustrate the specific organization (a historical society) that the images promote. (It is possible that they may grant permission if asked nicely...see WP:BRP.) —Steven G. Johnson 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could do with a hand on that Neddyseagoon 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon[reply]
    - I've sent an email requesting permission; I'll post here if/when they respond. —Steven G. Johnson 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also by same user: Image:Henryhowardtombcoronet.jpg, Image:Henryhowardtomb.jpg, Image:Framlingham1church.jpg, Image:4thDukeWivesTombFramlingham.jpg, Image:3rdDukeTombFramlingham.jpg, Image:PLAN2CROMANDOVER.gif, Image:ROMANHARBOURDOVER.gif, Image:Img roman dover.gif - claimed without evidence as PD —Steven G. Johnson 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also by same user: Image:Doverromanpaintedhouse1.jpg, Image:Janus quadrifons.jpg, Image:Caesarion BBC.jpg, Image:Biber on display.jpg, Image:Biber at sea.jpg, Image:Flaxman gallery.jpg, Image:AH6311.jpg, Image:Celestahelmet.jpg, Image:Sallet.jpg, Image:Capeline.jpg, Image:Walmeraerial.jpg, Image:Walmergardens.jpg, Image:WalmerCaesar.gif, Image:Cassius.jpg - claimed as promotional but used as generic illustrations of the object in question rather than to illustrate the specific organization/product the image is promoting, hence not fair use. (And in many cases are photos that Wikipedians could easily take themselves. A couple are historical images that may qualify as fair use on other grounds.) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also by same user: Image:S giorgio2.jpg, Image:2c3969a341ca75e7385706f898edd9b105fcd75e.jpg, Image:Smfirstholland.jpg, - claimed PD-old, but no evidence of age (no date, no author, ...) —Steven G. Johnson 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also by same user: Image:GuidoOctavius.jpg, Image:MalvolioGuido.jpg - no evidence of copyrightedfreeuse —Steven G. Johnson 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also by same user: Image:MainGuido.jpg - claimed promotional, but apparently taken from a photographer's web site and used to illustrate the subject of the photo (an actor) rather than e.g. the photographer in question. —Steven G. Johnson 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All entirely justified I can be a klutz sometimes re pictures - please delete them all and notify me what articles each linked to in my talk area, and I'll find a photo that I've taken myself to replace it. Simpler that way than to revise case by case. Neddyseagoon 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon[reply]
Image:Motorway Hungary.jpg - Is there any proof that Hungary releases its works into the PD? I think there's a reason we don't have a {{PD-HungaryGov}} tag. --Rory096 23:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader has since clarified: "According to Hungarian Copyright Act No. 76 of 1999, Paragraph 1§(4), laws, other means of regulation of the Hungarian State, etc., standards, made compulsory by law, etc., are not protected." I found this copy online, but of course it's in Hungarian, so I asked one or two people from Category:User hu to stop by and help translate the relevant bits. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 4th point of the first paragraph says (roughly translated) that "Not protected by the [copyright] law are the legislations, other instruments of state control, court and authority decrees, authority or other official notices and files, as wellas legislationally mandatory standards and other related resolutions." Considering the image is a standardized sign, this might apply. Hope that helped. // Gargaj 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it does mention "official notices/announcements". As Gargaj said, as a this is a standardized sign this might apply. --Zoz (t) 21:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, Simetrical, for your civilised action. Rory096 was a bit rude when adding tags like "the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added" The present tag looks better. --KIDB 06:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16 May

Image:KSWLOGO.JPG - image has a nonfree license. --Hetar 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nepenthes northiana .jpg - Image is tagged with norightsreserved, but summary indicates it is "used with permission". Sounds like a nonfree license to me. --Hetar 02:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:!yowpad.jpg.jpg - Author is unknown, how does he know it's copyrighted free use? --Rory096 03:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Champ8 edited.jpg - Author is not him, and I don't see anything on that site saying it's free use. --Rory096 03:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:100 0583.JPG, Image:100 0586.JPG, Image:100 0587.JPG - source site clearly says "Copyright © 2004-2006 Amy L H Williams All rights reserved" --Rory096 03:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:132 092 mukhtarov.jpg, Image:Nagiev.jpg, Image:132 610 taghiyev.jpg - source site clearly says "© Azerbaijan International. All Rights Reserved." --Rory096 03:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Pokémon Minun Icon.jpg - Derivative of Image:Minun in pokedex.jpg. I speedied this once, but the user reupped it, insisting that his/her modifications made it okay. Can someone please clear things up for this user? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even if he drew the character from scratch it would still be a copyvio (these characters are all copyrighted, there is a reason people are not simply setting up shop drawing and printing theyr own pokemon trading cards (well not openly anyway)), the fact that this use is unlikely to provoke a legal action is irrelevant since we do not follow the "we are just fan's please don't sue" mode of operation most fan art sites rely on, but actualy try to get this copyright stuff right. --Sherool (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Wikiaker.jpg - Says "I took a digital image of a picture from an old book. The book is protected by copyright, but only states that the INFORMATION within must not be used elsewhere without special permission. It says nothing about the pictures." Come ON! Of course if it says the information is copyrighted the pics are too. Anyway, things are automatically copyrighted even if it doesn't say anything. --Rory096 05:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More nonfree images by the same uploader: Image:Tommie aaron 1964.jpg, Image:Wikiallenh.jpg —Steven G. Johnson 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:TS portrait 1 150.jpg - This looks like a professional portrait (and has "portrait" in the name!), I doubt he created it. --Rory096 05:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nobuo Uematsu Woolen Jumper.jpg - Doubtful that it's NoRightsReserved; the source doesn't give any indication of it. --Rory096 05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:NOAC 2006 Art Work.jpg too, if it doesn't get speedied. --Rory096 05:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Err, I meant Image:120px-Nobuo Uematsu.jpg and Image:Seishi Kishimoto.jpg, though that one is probably a cv too. --Rory096 18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ed 09.jpg - Says he got permission to use it, not to release it as {{NoRightsReserved}}. --Rory096 05:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Curicó Unido.jpg - Is a team portrait, doubtful that he is the creator. --Rory096 05:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Northern.jpg uses the {{NoRightsReserved}} tag. There's nothing at the source to indicate such broad purpose. The user has justified its usage here. I do not beleive we have proof of unlimited reuse (including commercial use and derived work). Also fairuse is ruled out, as this is a public building, anybody locally could take a photo of. I think this was upload in good faith, by a user who beleives we have permission, but such permission is inadequate. --Rob 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploads by J3wishVulcan:
- Originally tagged {{NoRightsReserved}}, after querying, changed to {{GFDL-self}} which I do not believe - low res images from very high viewpoints:
- Source given but no evidence of licence:
  - Image:Exhibition1.jpg
- Images from in http://ballparkdigest.com/visits/rogers.htm which caries a pretty explicit notice: All rights reserved. My wife is a lawyer, so she will come and chop off your hand in a legal fashion if you rip off this site in any form:

-- RHaworth 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Motoh.jpg - source clearly says © 2002 Frank X. Brusca. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. --Rory096 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Thewindmill.jpg - source says nothing about a CC license. --Rory096 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Image:TheWindmill.jpg, an apparent duplicate. —Steven G. Johnson 02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:CentralAnatolianTurkishHouse.jpg - claimed CopyrightedFreeUse by User:Ajda, but this user has a history of misunderstanding copyright law (see 15 May PUIs) and cited permission statement is in Turkish and very hard to verify whether it gives GFDL-compatible permissions. —Steven G. Johnson 20:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:TMM Group.JPG -- screen shot from Tokyo Mew Mew tagged as GPL, I don't think so. --iMb~Meow 21:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like it should have the {{tv-screenshot}} tag. Sailorptah 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Carmen Wiki.jpg. This is apparently a screenshot from Carmen Electra's "Aerobic Striptease". Directed by Edward Lachman and with a $1 million budget. Uploader was only active on WP for 2 hours in March, tagged image with GFDL-self. The article about Carmen already has three other fair use-images which should be enough. Thuresson 21:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following all from User:Kingstonjr, who has a long history of uploading non-free and questionably-free images, many of which have not yet been dealt with in his contribution history, and are not listed here. This list is just very recent examples. --Kickstart70-T-C 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Paris Hilton Upskirt.jpg
- Image:Alyssa03.jpg
- Image:Carmen Miranda upskirt.JPG
- Image:Lucy lawless nude.jpg
- Image:Tara Reid Nipple.JPG
- Image:Sophie Marceau Cannes 2005.jpg
- Image:Jayne mansfield038.jpg
- Image:Loren mansfield.jpg
  - Actually, it seems like there may be a reasonable argument for "fair use" in these cases. They are used to illustrate critical commentary on the photos themselves, rather than the subjects of the photos per se. Moreover, several of those photos are so well-known as to have achieved quasi-iconic status. (Whether Wikipedia really needs an article on Nude celebrities on the Internet is another question, of course.) —Steven G. Johnson 02:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - For the sake of argument, let's say that a professional photographer took one of these photos, and was selling individual publication rights (not wholesale rights to the image in perpetuity) to using it. Spreading it like this would be looked at in a very harsh light by any court attempting to decide on a Fair Use claim. In any case, some of these photos are tagged with licenses that are just downright incorrect (Alyssa03.jpg as government-paid work of a member of the armed forces, the Mansfield pics as TV screencaps, etc.) they need to be dealt with on an individual basis. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually the Alyssa03.jpg is taken by US marines whilst Alyssa milano was in Iraq. I have also seen that you have labelled the Sophie MArceau Cannes image as unfair use as 'it is not a TV screenshot' wll it is and this is discussed in the disscusion page of that image with a link to its footage this also applies to the Tara Reid Nipple.jpg image. KingstonJr
        Just because a photo is taken by a U.S. Marine does not make it owned by the government and therefore the citizenry. Even if it was some government project to take photos of Alyssa Milano's nipples, you still have a problem with WP:Verifiability --Kickstart70-T-
        OK, what about the rest? KingstonJr

C 00:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pgbhs1.jpg uploaded and tagged as public domain. It's a Reuters image. No fair use rationale provided. Rob Church (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits

17 May

Image:Calgary mcmahon.jpg - claimed promotional, but not used to illustrate any product associated with the source (worldstadiums.com). —Steven G. Johnson 02:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tony hulman bw.jpg - claimed as pd-self but the image is clearly scanned from a book or newspaper. --Hetar 06:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mary fendrich hulman col.jpg - claimed as pd-self but the summary says the photographer is uknown. --Hetar 06:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Astrograph.jpg - claimed as norights reserved, but the source is just some website from a google search. --Hetar 06:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GateHPU.jpg - marked pd-self, but given the other unsourced images uploaded around the same time by the user, this seems doubtful. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:YZR(Sin).png, Image:Temjin.jpg, Image:Apharmd.jpg and Image:BaLmeodora.jpg - user claims PD, which seems unlikely given the images source (Sega). --82.83.108.230 15:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Races all.JPG — Image was claimed to be PD because authorship was not known. I looked up the book and the authors are clearly listed, and there is no reason to suspect that this image is PD. --Fastfission 15:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Another view of Maracay..jpg - tagged as a book cover but that is obviously not the point. No other copyright information provided. --Hetar 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:132 092 mukhtarov.jpg tagged as {{NoRightsReserved}} and said to belogn to Azer.com, but if that is correct there is no sign that it would be free use. However the image most likely does not belong to azer.com, given the age of the subjects it might even be PD, but we need a better source to determine that. --Sherool (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader removed the PUI tag and added this to the image page: "The image is referenced from www.azer.com which revokes rights to it, picture itself over 100 years old." on second though I'll give it the benefit of the doubth and just put pd-old on it unless anyone objects, though I guess strictly speaking we could use a better source to prove that it has been published and whatnot... --Sherool (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18 May

Image:Sun_crusher.GIF - Image was on unknown status but is from Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels Schnauf 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Beaven.jpg - Image claimed as PD self however it looks like it was copied from some website. Also, a comment on the image's discussion page indicates the subject of the picture is a different building than what it claims - no likely a mistake like this would exist if the uploader was the photographer. --Hetar 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Panorama1.jpg - same uploader as above image. I doubt this was self taken since it has an arial view, and this user has a notorious copyright history. --Hetar 01:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Image:Current right.jpg, claimed PD-self but obviously copied from http://www.gonzaga.org/
Image:FilipinoEthnicGroups.JPG and Image:Phdiversity.JPG - a photo collage for which the listed sources are "Wikimedia Uploaded Pictures or Online Forums." Some of these are very likely copyvios. --Hetar 05:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Korean (Sandara Park) - from a forum thread - therefore may be considered a free source." Clearly not free. --Rory096 07:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jessica Boehrs in Eurotrip.jpg and Image:004EUT Jessica Boehrs 017.jpg - Fair use rationale is "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents," BUT they're used on Jessica Böhrs' article. --Rory096 05:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Uday hussein.jpg - "US Central Command photo , link: http://www.centcom.mil/Operations/Iraqi%20Freedom/playing_cards.pdf [doesn't work]. Photos are not PD just because they were published be the US government. / Fred-Chess 11:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Archived versions of the source PDF is available at the Internet Archive at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.centcom.mil/Operations/Iraqi%20Freedom/playing_cards.pdf for what that's worth. Doesn't prove that the image is a work of the US government though. --Sherool (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Barbara Bush.jpg, Image:Betty Ford.gif, Image:Elizabeth Truman.gif, Image:Hillary WHportrait.jpg, Image:Lady Bird Johnson.gif, Image:Mamie eisenhower.gif, Image:Pat nixon.jpg - as noted above, paintings of government officials are unlikely to have been painted by government employees and are therefore not in the public domain (at least, not for paintings since 1923). A fair-use rationale is unclear here, since we can probably find official government photos (which are in the public domain, assuming they were taken by a staff photographer) of the subjects. —Steven G. Johnson 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said previously, these are PD, and I will revert the tags. --evrik 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:0waldo-ceiling-1.jpg The copyright notice is pretty unclear on this one, and I am not sure it meets the guidelines for inclusion. The same notice seems to have been addded to all images uploaded by this user 67.99.198.2 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tray Card BW photo.jpg - unlikely that it's {{NoRightsReserved}} if it's from a press kit. --Rory096 04:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Tray Card BW Photo.jpg, Image:ATSpring.jpg and Image:Cover only-2.jpg too. --Rory096 04:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Keenan.jpg - Clearly violates the source's copyright page, this isn't CC. --Rory096 06:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to report the same thing. Almost all of the uploader's contributions are copyvios so it is natural to assume that this one is. I am watching the user and will block him if he continues. Kusma (討論) 15:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Anshan.jpg - copyrighted google earth image. --Hetar 06:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Childwithdimples.jpg Uploader claims GFDL, but did not reply to request made several months ago on his/her user talk page to provide evidence that s/he has the right to do so. Image is easily found with a google image search, so it's rather suspect. --Icarus 07:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Village.chapel.1866.jpg too. --Rory096 07:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Image:Great Neck South High School.jpg and maybe even Image:Teddybear.jpg, as all of his uploads are suspect. --Rory096 07:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19 May

Image:MullaSadra.jpg — I placed a "no source" tag on this, and seven days later deleted it. It's now been re-uploaded, with a source that's merely a Web page that uses it with no indication as to copyright status. The up-loader claims that it's out of copyright because it's older than a century, but there's no evidence for this (and it doesn't look anything like that old). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:0waldo.zombie.jpg, Image:0waldo-rendering-1.jpg, Image:0waldo.selfportrait-1.gif, Image:0waldo.jimbo-workandwrite.jpg, Image:0waldo.screensaver-1.jpg, Image:0waldo-rolling.gif, Image:0waldo.me.jpg, Image:0waldo.Munchovie.jpg,Image:0waldo.3dt359.offset.jpg, Image:0waldo.HOGenerator.jpg, Image:0waldo.screensaver-2.jpg, Image:0waldo.porsche930-1.jpg, Image:0waldo.3dt359.jpg, Image:0waldo.85slantnose.jpg - amateur license terms whose meaning is unclear, especially "Use is not transferable", all uploaded by User:0waldo —Steven G. Johnson 16:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. He's refused to clarify what he means by "use is not transferable". --Carnildo 17:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete them all? you are too dumbo the clown not to understand "use is not transferable" sso you delee them? it's the same olf sixez and sevens around herre! persecute 0waldo and all he does. refused to clarify what? not transferrable? it's like asking you to clairfy what Carnildo means! some type of carnival/dildhoe or something like that? clarify what? that you don't understand what I mean!? NO THE ANSWER IS "p-e-r-s-e-c-u-t-e W-a-l-d-o" OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. 0waldo 19:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0waldo, please stop. You're not helping the situation. Nobody is out to get you and the constant point-making that they are, is not helping and is counterproductive. — Natha n ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? English please. Also, if the "use is not transferable" then the images can't be used on wikipedia. Images here MUST be transferable to other projects... even commercial for-profit uses. There is a plan to sell a paper dictionary after all. So either releace the photos under GFDL or PD... ---J.S (t|c) 20:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you want, you can license the images under an acceptable Creative Commons license. --Carnildo 21:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:L1912678.jpg - claims norightsreserved but I see no evidence of that, and highly doubt it considering its copied from a website. --Hetar 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 May

Image:Eisenhower's Uncle.jpg - photograph of a copyrighted newspaper claiming to be pd. This is no more PD because the uploader took the photograph than me being allowed to take photographs of every page of a book and selling it as PD. --pgk^(talk) 17:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:AcdcAngusyoung.jpg - claimed as gfdl-self. I doubt this is the case given the subject, proximity, and quality of the photograph, as well as this users history of neglecting copyright. --Hetar 19:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Marbled cat.gif tagged as PD without sufficient rationale or source. Tagged subsequently as speedy delete, but not a speedy candidate. Thus, I bring it to you folks. Chick Bowen 19:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images in Category:Soccer-europe images, except those uploaded by User:Soccer-europe.com. This user has released the copyright to some of his images, however, other people have uploaded additional images and used the {{SocEur}} tag. He has said that some, but not all, of these additional images fall under the free use license. Per the user's request, the images he identified as copyright violations have been deleted. As it stands, he states that he will "probably" identify more images that are not actually released from copyright. This is not acceptable since he can basically revoke the license to any of the images at any time he wants. I propose that all of the images uploaded by User:Soccer-europe.com be changed to {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|http://soccer-europe.com is credited}} and the remainder (those uploaded by other users) be deleted. -SCEhard T 21:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21 May

Image:RUC-FALLS-ROAD.jpg - tv screenshot that does not qualify for fair use. --Hetar 02:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a TV image from BBC TV. The TV image is available online here. Why doesnt it qualify? Fluffy999 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See counterexample #5 from Wikipedia:Fair use. --Hetar 03:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I read the conditions of #5. The article being illustrated is the Falls Road, the base happened to be near the top of it- a feature of the area and skyline. It isnt an iconic image from the area- the bobby sands mural image is most commonly used as a motif for the area. ImageGoogle "Falls Road" and you get a bunch of murals. Its not newsworthy because the base itself no longer exists- it was demolished around 2 years ago. It is low resolution. Are you still going to reject the image? Fluffy999 03:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi, left a message on your talk asking if you can set out your reasoning point by point for rejecting it on those counts. Thanks! Fluffy999 04:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's an exact example of of what does not qualify as fair use as I stated above. There is no reasoning to spell out. The image will remained listed here for 14 days at which point an administrator will make a decision as to the image's status. --Hetar 04:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No need to be uncivil about it. Was just hoping for an expansion of your reasoning. I will look for another image of the road in the meantime. Be well. Fluffy999 04:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fm0.jpg and Image:Qfm.jpg both copied from some website. Claimed as copyrighted-attribution but I see no evidence to support this. --Hetar 04:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See "http://queen.musichall.cz/index_en.php?s=df&topicid=160&idshift=0&st=2" for permission the site owner clearly states he has NO copyrights. (photo page[1]). - Mtmtmt 04:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The site owner says, "I don't have any copyrights on the photos." Which seems to imply that someone else has the copyright. Who took the original photos? --Hetar 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AIverson.jpg - Current copyright tag claims that it is a promotional photo, but it clearly is not. The given source for this is photostore.nba.com. That site says quite explicitly that: Copyright 2006 NBA Media Ventures, LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of NBA.com may be duplicated, redistributed or manipulated in any form. Images from photostore.nba.com are for sale commercially. They are not promotional photos. User who uploaded has a history of not tagging or mis-tagging images. Mwelch 11:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22 May

Image:Alfred Spiro Moisiu.jpg (Alfred Moisiu), uploader claims that this 2003 United Nations photo is PD but www.un.org claims that photos can only be used for editorial purposes. No commercial use. Thuresson 11:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Clinton.jpg, Image:Fordportrait.gif - As noted here, official paintings are commissioned works, and since they are not the work of a federal government employee, they are not public domain. A fair use rationale is unnecessary as photographs taken by government hired photographers already exist.--Jiang 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Disgree You're wrong on this issue. Rather than wrecking havoc, why don't you start a new topic at the village pump and get some clarity on the issue. --evrik 18:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of PD photos of Clinton and Ford that can be used instead. This topic is discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. Thuresson 14:34, 23 May 2006
  - It's quite clear from the text of the Copyright Act that paintings commissioned by the federal government are not public domain, as spelled out in the link Jiang points to above. Evrik continues to dispute this without presenting a coherent and logical argument for his lone position, let alone substantively responding to anyone else's comments. Postdlf 13:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evrik, in order for anyone to take you seriously, you have to demonstrate that you understand and can rebut the arguments for why commissioned paintings are ot PD-gov. Thus far, this hasn't happened, and the arguments on the other side are persuasive (I won't repeat them). It looks, unfortunately, like these images need to be deleted (unless we can get permission from the painter). —Steven G. Johnson 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve -I understand the arguments. The crux of the issue is this - when the paintings are commissioned, it is with the understanding that this is going to be a gift to the American people (and into the public domain). The artists know this when they are commissioned to do the work. This understanding is so ingrained in the process, that trying to find something that clearly states this online has been difficult. Sadly, it's much easier to misquote a small section of the law and misapply it to these paintings. I have made some queries about this, but have not received anything concrete yet. It is frustrating that no one who is an expert in the arae has been brought into the debate, just a few armchair attorneys. I am also amazed that two or three users, with limited knowledge of the law are going to try and force such a broad change. Since many of these same issues have been posted to the commons, it would seem to me that we need someone who is an expert and an authority. --evrik 17:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evrik, how do you know this? Have you seen it in writing? "Understanding" is not the way copyright law works...copyright law requires that transfer of copyright be made in writing. (§204: "transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing") You haven't provided any evidence to back up your arguments—bald assertions are not persuasive. (Can you give an example of someone who has "misquoted" the law?) Wikipedia has to be conservative and assume every image is copyrighted and unusable (except by fair use) unless we have explicit evidence to the contrary. —Steven G. Johnson 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said elsewhere, I spoke to the curator at the White House. Now please stop your wanton vandalism of all the portraits. --evrik 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Shaqheat.jpg - This would appear to be the source: [2] The notes at the bottom seem to contradict the claim that this is a released promotional photo. Mwelch 18:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Aquilini.jpg - copied from canucks.com and claimed as norightsreserved. I can find nothing on the site that releases this image under said license. --Hetar 18:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:20050928000024 00.jpg - given this articles subject, i doubt it is gfdl-self as the uploader claims. --Hetar 23:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is now changed, please verify —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matchbow (talk • contribs) .

23 May

Image:Cds5.jpg - Claimed as pd-self but obviously contains several copyrighted images. --Hetar 00:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything here, too. --Rory096 06:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Devyani.jpg - tagged GFDL-self, but summary indicates "modified by" uploader; evidently taken by someone else (it appears to be a newspaper photograph--see [3]). Chick Bowen 03:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:25 1.jpg - image found on ebay. --Hetar 03:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Feb12005.gif - tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} without explanation of why that might be the case. Nepalese government photographs (or TV broadcasts, in this case) do not I believe have free licenses. Chick Bowen 03:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jhonen rikki jamaica.jpg - uploader admits author is unknown. --Hetar 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Denis Dyack.jpg - Uploader found the picutre on a forum and claims {{NoRightsReserved}}, though no evidence of that. It is very likely that the image is copyrighted. Hunter 06:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:IRIX 6.5.6 Desktop.jpg - claims GFDL-self, but is a screenshot of copyrighted software, copied from [4] - Qwertyus 11:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Marilyn Manson.jpg Claiimed PD-Self, but it is very doubtful. User has been warned for copyright problems and vandalism before. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 May

Image:Vista-aerea.jpg, a photo of Universidad del Valle from above. Uploader claims "NoRightsReserved" but the university web page www.univalle.edu.co claims "©1994-2004". Thuresson 12:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hooverphonic.jpg is tagged Template:NoRightsReserved but the source is unclear.--Jusjih 13:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jimmy Blanton.jpg. Tagged {{PD}} by uploader. Can't possibly have fallen out of copyright as a pre-1923 image as the subject in the image looks maybe 18 or 20 and was born in 1919. No source provided either. Dr Zak 14:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Calloways.jpg. Tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but looks like a promophoto. Can't find the source, and uploader provided none. Dr Zak 14:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ghwbush.jpg,Image:HRC.jpg,Image:Lyndon B. Johnson - portrait.gif,Image:Hhover.gif,Image:Grace Coolidge.gif - as described here, paintings are not made by US gov. employees and therefore not generally PD. Fair use is dubious since there are probably photos in the public domain, and the articles are not about the painting or artist per se. —Steven G. Johnson 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said here, I spoke to Bill Alman, the White House curator, who said the following. "Generally, the portraits are property of the federal government and are in the public domain. In the case of the White House portraits, the photograph of the portrait may have copyright restrictions, but that it should be generally okay to use the images as long as the publisher of the electronic image is credited." These images are in the public domain, and have been inappropriately listed. As such, I am going to remove the PUI tags. Is there a copyright attorney in the house? --evrik 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evrik, you do not have authority to unilaterally remove PUI tags while the issue is still under dispute. —Steven G. Johnson 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The instructions at the top of this page say that PD images can be removed. These are all PD. --evrik 21:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - But PD itself is disputed, and you've been reminded of this before. The purpose of this page is not to tag images for deletion; it is for promoting discussion on the status of an image. --Jiang 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

25 May

Image:GricelMamery1.jpg was tagged {{PD-self}} by uploader, but in the AfD for the article which uses the image, he stated "the image is a scan from a weekly magazine this current issue is out of regulation and is about 7 years old". I suspect the uploader, who is not a native English speaker, considers the scan of the magazine photo the work of which he is a creator. The image has been challenged on the AfD page as well. --MCB 02:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Teen Photo.jpg, Image:008400 e 1.jpg - both photos are improperly tagged, and the first one wouldn't even qualify for fair use if it was tagged as such. --Hetar 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Anab.JPG - after apply the nsd tag several times I was finally able to convince the uploader to provide the source (a screen capture from an A&E biography). With this as the source I don't think we can assume PD, nor does it qualify for fair use. --Hetar 04:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bb5house.jpg was tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but uploader said it came from a website. No evidence of rights being released. -- Barrylb 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:05HMS.jpg was tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but uploader said it came from a website. No evidence of rights being released. -- Barrylb 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Diaryroom.jpg was tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but uploader said it came from a website. No evidence of rights being released. -- Barrylb 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Houseplan bb4.JPG was tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but uploader said it came from a website. No evidence of rights being released. -- Barrylb 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Housemates.jpg was tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but uploader said it came from a website. No evidence of rights being released. -- Barrylb 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:03houseplan.jpg was tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but uploader said it came from a website. No evidence of rights being released. -- Barrylb 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bb02.jpg was tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but uploader said it was press/promo material from a website.. perhaps improperly tagged. -- Barrylb 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sagar1.jpg Image:Guntur-sitanagaram.jpg Image:Koti1.jpg Image:Amaravathi.jpg Image:Mangalagiri1.jpg Image:Sarovar2.jpg Image:Vnagar.jpg - all uploaded by the same user with norightsreserved or copyrightedfreeuse. Some of the images even state in the text summmary that all rights are reserved. --Hetar 15:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:06gina.jpg was tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} but uploader comment was "Forum image from www.behindbigbrother.com - poster unknown" -- Barrylb 20:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Parokya.jpg - no evidence of 'no rights reserved' -SCEhard T 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Dubaimall.jpg - uploader is claiming no rights reserved, after being questioned about the source they then claimed that the owner gave permission to use on Wikipedia, however this still doesn't prove no rights reserved, and is insufficient permission for use anyways as all images should be licensed under the GFDL or a simillar free license (not just specific permission granted to WP) --Hetar 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader has now provided a link to the email giving permission, but the tag does not match the permission given, and we need permission for the picture to be used on other places besides Wikipedia (we do distribute our content to other places btw). --Hetar 23:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Email granting permission is relevant --Jibran1 02:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A fair-use tag has been added. A fair-use rationale has also been added. --Jibran1 14:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Cyprus Treasure.jpg - image copied from [5], uploader is claiming GFDL although I see no evidence of this. --Hetar 23:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- and Image:Karavas Pente Mili Beach.jpg which has been copied from a book/website and which the uploader claims has been released under two separate licenses. --Hetar 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

26 May

Image:Shapefile.jpg - It's a screenshot, unlikely to be PD, as taking a screenshot is not nearly creative enough to gain the copyright. --Rory096 04:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Drawball may26.jpg - Screenshot of copyrighted website tagged as GFDL, not {{web-screenshot}}. --Rory096 17:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well fix it then, I don't mind Comradeash 02:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tabu3.jpg - copied from a website, claims no rights reserved but no evidence give to support. --Hetar 18:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Eloy Palacios .jpg - claims picture is a book cover, which it is obviously not. Uploader has a long history of ignoring copyright. --Hetar 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fadlallah2.jpg - copied from a geocities website and claiming no rights reserved with no evidence of permission. --Hetar 20:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:MAN NL 262 & 263.jpg - copied from www.gakei.com and claiming no rights reserved with no evidence of permission. Uploader notified.--Jusjih 15:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: Image:Double decker ferry.jpg, Image:Citybus Cityflyer 1566 A10.JPG, Image:KMB Dennis Pointer SLF GU719.jpg Image:KMB Dennis Jubilant CH7035.jpg, Image:Long Win Single decker bus no. 908.jpg, and over 20 other images uploaded by JulianChan --Hetar 18:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just inspected the images uploaded by JulianChan. All of them are claimed to be copyrighted with free use, but there has been no evidence of copyright perimssion from the source web sites. I have reported this uploader to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JulianChan uploading copyrighted images with false licenses for any admin's attention.--Jusjih 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Alqusairchurch.jpg - from http://weekly.ahram.org.eg and claiming GFDL but the source web site says "© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved". Uploader notified.--Jusjih 15:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader just removed the dispute template claimed: "I gave this pic to Al Ahram for there article about Christianity in Karbala, and they posteded in (I believe) 2005. I got the pic from a friend in Ankawa." Is it acceptable or sufficient? I just asked the uploader to explain who exactly took the picture.--Jusjih 12:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

27 May

Image:CyberKids2.jpg - Uploader is not the photographer, which contradicts the info stated in the licensing section. See [6] for image source. -- Mushin ^talk 16:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Carl Anderson.jpg - Uploader has a history of uploading images where there is no real permission to license them under the GFDL. No good reason to think this is a GFDL image. Johnleemk | Talk 17:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bryan green.jpg - not suitable because use only granted for non commercial purposes. -- Barrylb 18:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jim Bacon.JPG - tagged with {{Parliament of Australia}} but uploader said it came from "TAS Parliament Archives" which is not the same thing. -- Barrylb 18:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Christine Milne.jpeg - tagged with {{fairuse}} - obsolete tag - image was copied from a website. i've replaced with a better substitute anyway Image:SenatorChristineMilne.jpg -- Barrylb 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Douglas engelbart.jpg - Reason: i unfortunately can't read Russian, but i don't see a Creative Commons logo anywhere on the source URL, it simply seems to be a collection of collected photos from Google Images. File:Huskyeye.jpg Husky ^{(talk page)} 21:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Their copyright notice states (roughly translated): "This is a non-commercial project, all photos come from open sources." This doesn't help very much ... - Mike Rosoft 09:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI: the uploader has a history of uploading images without much or dubious information. See User talk:Thief12. File:Huskyeye.jpg Husky ^{(talk page)} 19:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

28 May

Image:Shawn angela3.jpg - uploader tag it with {{PD-self}}, but the image appears to be a screenshot from the TV show Boy Meets World, so that's very unlikely.--ᎠᏢ4 62090^Contribs 03:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Oldlibrary1.jpg and Image:Oldlibrary2.jpg - From [7], used in Mamaroneck Public Library. Marked as {{no rights reserved}}; I was unable to verify that at the site. The photos were taken "circa 1927", so they may be in public domain. - Mike Rosoft 09:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Shobhana.jpg - User tagged it under GFDL, but that claim is dubious. User has a history of uploading unsourced images, and this appears to be a copyrighted news/publicity photo. User:Harishmukundan has been notified. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Abynes.jpg - Image page claims that the copyright holder has released all rights, but it is unlikely that the source page listed even owns the rights in the first place. User:6RUMPY has been notified. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Corey sevier.jpg - Tagged as a screenshot, but it looks more like a publicity photo of some sort. User:Servebot 1 has been notified. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jsimpson.jpg - Tagged as a magazine cover but image does not show any part of the magazine and it is violating "It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image". -- Barrylb 21:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

29 May

Image:Gsm3.jpg - claims it is a personal photo, but then tagged as fair use. Because of the extremely small resoltuion, I doubt the uploader owns the copyright to this. --Hetar 06:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Stridsbat90h.jpg - not PD.
Image:MabuiagIsland.jpg - no reason given for "no rights reserved" -SCEhard T 11:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jeffstover2.jpg - says that it is taken from sportsattic.com, but gives no indication that permission has been obtained or that the image is public domain. -- Kjkolb 15:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]